[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: bind faces?
RE: bind faces?
Sun, 14 May 2006 09:13:15 -0700
The example I gave causes the given face's display to change _during
the binding_ -- I used a call to read-string in my example because
that causes redisplay and user interaction within the binding; the
display of the given face changes back again after the binding ceases
to be active
That's what I was saying also: the user (programmer) can do something
(read-string is one possibility) to force redisplay within the scope of the
binding. And the "face changes back again after the binding ceases to be
active". The example I gave used `force-mode-line-update' to cause
redisplay. I also mentioned (sit-for 0). You used `read-string'. There are
many ways to cause redisplay, I believe.
We seem to be saying the same thing about this aspect - you about what your
feature does and I about what my requested feature would do.
If I understand Stefan's point, it is that redisplay does not automatically
occur just because you've made a face binding and changed some text
properties. The user would be responsible for doing something to cause
redisplay, or else the face change wouldn't be manifested visually.
I have no problem with the user taking responsibility for redisplay. Unless
I misunderstand, that is no different from what happens now when you assign
(not bind) new properties to a face and then put that face on some text.
Without redisplay the change is not seen. Again, I'm no expert on faces and
the display process - correct me if I'm wrong on this.
I'm not saying that your implementation wouldn't satisfy my request. If it
does, and if it's the best implementation for such a feature, then I'm all
for it. I am not proposing any particular implementation, and I am not
saying anything about your implementation. I didn't follow the thread about
face remapping. If my request is nothing new, and this question has already
been decided, then ignore my request.
Re: bind faces?, Stefan Monnier, 2006/05/14
- Re: bind faces?, (continued)